GOP state senator tries to de-gay Aristotle, Alexander the Great

New Mexico State Senator Bill Sharer -- obsessed about gays

New Mexico State Senator Bill Sharer — can’t stop obsessing about The Gays

Meet New Mexico State Senator Bill Sharer (R-obviously), representing the far northwest Four-Corners district that includes the town of Farmington — a district filled with thousands of brand new fracking wells and thousands of abjectly poor Navajo people worried their meager water supplies will soon be poisoned.

Former Taco Bell manager, now New Mexico Senator, Bill Sharer has an obsession. Can you guess what it is?

No, it’s not the environment or jobs. Sharer’s obsession is The Gays, don’t ya know.

And The Gays have been freaking him out ever since he took office in January 2001.

Homophobic remarks available on-demand

When the news sites want a quote from someone who opposes New Mexico’s late-blooming Summer of Love gay marriages, Sharer is their guy. He can always be counted upon to produce a nicely apocalyptic sound-bite. Like this one:

“Does the legislature with the consent of the governor make the law or is this now the wild, wild, wild, west where each judge makes his or her own law?” asked Sharer.

Because ‘wild, wild west’ wouldn’t have been scary enough. Or something. (Honestly, maybe it’s me, but I’m hearing three snaps and a twist in that triply repeated “wild,” y’know what I’m saying?)

Or this:

“(T)he whole idea of a representative government of the people, for the people and by the people is gone,” he laments. “And no matter where you stand on any issue, you should be scared to death of this new way of making laws.”

Or this one, in which Senator Sharer demonstrates his ignorance of the role of the judiciary in government, as well as history and NM state law:

“It is inexplicable how a district court just today discovered a new definition of marriage in our laws, when our marriage law has not been changed in over a century.”

Sorry, Senator, but marriage law changed quite a bit in 1973 when Section 18 was enacted in the state constitution:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person.

That’s right: New Mexico has had an Equal Rights Amendment since 1973. How’s that for progressive?

Hating the gays for his entire legislative career

NM Senator Sharer apparently handles snakes, too, in his spare time. Why? No clue.

When he’s not blogging or failing to pass yet another anti-gay marriage amendment, NM Senator Sharer apparently handles snakes in his spare time. Why? Perhaps to see if anyone can tell them apart.

For years now, he’s been trying over and over and over to enact a constitutional ban on marriage equality in New Mexico — and failing miserably every time. Needless to say, what started in Doña Ana county and is spreading like wildfire throughout the state is making him a wery, wery unhappy widdle Senator. He’s referred to the Doña Ana county clerk as a “little dictator.”

Anyway, for the last few weeks, ever since the same sex marriages began in New Mexico, he’d been threatening legal action “very soon.” He’d also said he has “nearly 30” GOP legislators with him for the challenge.

Friday’s late report (8/30): They finally did file their challenge. His “nearly 30” GOP legislators turned out to be seven, including himself.

So what’s their cunning plan legal strategy for all those New Mexico counties issuing same sex marriage licenses — Doña Ana, Santa Fe, Bernalillo, San Miguel, Valencia, and Taos — with Los Alamos now also ordered by the courts to do so? Obviously they’ll try to stop all of them. Their crack legal team must’ve found some way, some angle to argue that since the state itself doesn’t yet recognize same sex marriages, the current bunch of district judge rulings must be flawed or premature in some way, right?

Nope. Their legal strategy for dealing with all those fallen dominoes is only to attempt to re-stand the first one, Doña Ana county. Their court challenge makes no mention of any of the rest.

At this point, Sharer’s legal team is making Boehner’s DOMA-defending BLAG lawyers look like Atticus Finch.

Senator Sharer attempts to blog – hilarity ensues

Okay, now for the fun: It seems Senator Sharer has decided he wants to be a blogger, too. He even has a site for his blog, on his campaign website.

To say his site is crude is an understatement. I haven’t seen a blog — or an entire personal website — this primitive since MySpace.

Right now there are just three posts, the first of which is dated on August 23rd. All of them are on his favorite obsessive topic: Gay marriage and how much he hateses it. (Gollum!)

It gets better. His inaugural post, titled “Why Marriage?,”  is a long, rambling screed full of grammatical errors, grade school formatting, and word-salad writing in general. In the post, he rewrites all of human social history in a brimming bucket-of-FAIL attempt to prove that marriage always was one man, one woman, and only for breeders, across all cultures, everywhere. (I’m guessing he’s not all that familiar with the Old Testament either, other than the gay-hating and genocide bits.)

Alexander & Hephaistion -- Gaydar pinging even through the marble

Alexander & Hephaestion — Gaydar pinging massively, even through the marble

The truly hilarious part is when he attempts to de-gay Aristotle and Alexander the Great, both of whom have long and well-documented histories of having inseparable male lovers.

Here’s a small taste:

Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) married a Bactrian woman – modern day Afghanistan.  Alexander may have engaged in homosexual activity, but he married a woman.

He directed his officers to stop “whoring” around and find a local woman to marry.



“It is only through blood relations that hatred and war will end”.  In other words, Alexander the Great thought that marriage was about creating and raising the next generation. 

Alas, as with New Mexico state law, Senator Sharer gets his history all wrong. (I also love the junior high style shouted “WHY? BECAUSE”!)

First of all, he seems to have no clue regarding the difference between political marriages and those for love, chosen freely. Those forced, arranged marriages of Alexander’s officers weren’t for breeding or love, nor to reduce ‘whoring around‘, but to compel the creation of a legal bond between conquerer and conquered peoples. (And by the way, many of those officers already had one or more wives; this was just piling on.)

As a sign of just how successful those forced marriages were, nearly all of Alexander’s officers divorced immediately after their king’s death. Heck of a ‘sacred, universal institution,’ huh?

And Sharer completely ignores the fact that when Alexander the Great married Stateira after the Battle of Issus, he also — in the customs common at the time — married her cousin, Parysatis, while still married to his first wife, Roxana. In other words, polygamy! With a steaming hot slice of Hephaestion always and constantly at his side.

Sharer also attempts to co-opt:

It’s a hoot how much he gets completely wrong.

Anyway, if NM State Senator Sharer (R-DoofusExtraordinaire) is the best the anti-gay opposition can muster in New Mexico, I think the pro-equality side has good reasons to be optimistic for the future of gay marriage and LGBT rights here.

Published professional writer and poet, Becca had a three decade career in technical writing and consulting before selling off most of her possessions in 2006 to go live at an ashram in India for 3 years. She loves literature (especially science fiction), technology and science, progressive politics, cool electronic gadgets, and perfecting Hatch green chile recipes. Fortunately for this last, Becca and her wife currently live in New Mexico. @BeccaMorn

Share This Post

61 Responses to “GOP state senator tries to de-gay Aristotle, Alexander the Great”

  1. cwazycajun says:

    yeah he seems to enjoy looong round wiggleing things in his hands…just sayin

  2. ComradeRutherford says:

    “Just lie back and think o Hugh Jackman…”

  3. ArthurH says:

    Politicians have seldom been known for their historical literacy. Remember the story of Peter Minuet buying Manhattan Island from the Indians for $24 in junk jewelry? The story came from a Congressman who represented Brooklyn in the 1860s. He first mistranslated the story from Nederlander, mistaking the word implements for jewelry. The Indians actually got knives, axes and scissors (the latter something the Indians didn’t have). The Congressman also failed to account for the value of Dutch currency at the time of the trade. The value of the payment based on the gold and silver coins in those days would have been worth about $800,000 at today’s rate (still a bargain for all of Manhattan). But the Congressman used the then current Dutch money to American money exchange rate, with the Dutch currency having been changed since Peter Minuet’s days due to some financial panics. The story makes it look like the Europeans suckered the Indians, but the Indians that were paid for Manhattan didn’t own it, so it was the Europeans who were suckered. The Dutch later had to contend with the Indians that did, and that tribe got nothing but exile by force.

  4. Houndentenor says:

    I don’t think we can know which label Alexander would put on himself were he alive today. Was he bi? That makes sense. Or did he just marry because that’s what you were expected to do. Plenty of men who are gay have wives today but aren’t really bi. If you are closing your eyes and thinking about Hugh Jackman while you are having sex with a woman, that’s not bi.

  5. Of course, there’s still the previous president, James Buchanan, who was sensible enough to remain a bachelor. Too many think he was gay! Obvious Lincoln was aware of this speculation.

  6. What’s next — denying Julius Caesar was bisexual?

  7. Shlomo Abrin says:

    “Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) married a Bactrian woman – modern
    day Afghanistan. Alexander may have engaged in homosexual activity, but
    he married a woman.”

    Were Alexander alive today, he would be browsing the Casual Encounters section of CraigsList.

    “Married, bored, horny expansionist monarch seeks male FWB for sensual times. Must enjoy military encampments, frequent battles, travel, and cold nights in warm tents. Non-Smoker preferred, but not a deal breaker.”

  8. UncleBucky says:

    I bet if I told him that I didn’t like his religion/cult and that he should become a Pastafarian, he would tell me to shut up.


  9. wmforr says:

    Note that the Founding Fathers said “the right to bear arms”. They didn’t make any exceptions. If they had wanted to exclude nuclear arms, they would have said so! It is my constitutional right to have a hydrogen bomb in my house!

  10. ComradeRutherford says:

    Alexander was bisexual. That is the correct term for men that love both men and women. Far-right crazies, like this snake-handler, perpetuate the false argument that even one man-to-man sexual contact makes you gay forever. It’s bigots like him the pretend bisexuality don’t exist.

    I’ve known bisexuals of both genders that are across the entire spectrum. Women that mostly love women, but do enjoy a hard cock from time to time, and men that are married and yet have a boyfriend, etc. There is almost no such thing as sexual absolutism.

  11. BeccaM says:

    Little known detail I couldn’t find room or context to include in my post: Some of the Mormon sects were keen on trying to convert certain Native American tribes to Mormonism, particularly the Navajos and others with a tradition of polygamy.

  12. Monoceros Forth says:

    No need to imagine! There are a tremendous number of sculptures portraying Antinous with dozens of examples extant and, honestly, I’ve never seen anyone more drop-dead gorgeous in classical art. There was some idealization I’m sure but still.

  13. karmanot says:

    Maybe it’s time to declare Mormonism an official mental illness.

  14. karmanot says:

    Real men gay or straight are perfectly comfortable with sexuality and wear it well. It’s all these stringent, religious sissies that are uncomfortable with parts.

  15. karmanot says:

    I can just imagine! Hadrian wept enough tears to fill the Mediterranean after Antinous was murdered by the Roman equivalent of the Tea Party.

  16. karmanot says:

    And given a lifetime supply of socks in that banishment.

  17. karmanot says:

    There is the idea that compared to critical reasoning, common sense is indeed very common.

  18. karmanot says:

    “common sense”:

    “Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and
    discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are
    one’s mistakes.”
    Oscar Wilde,

  19. karmanot says:

    Good point! but since he does have a pet chupacabra he’d probably fall for the feathered serpent and call together a border posse.

  20. karmanot says:

    Waving his snake around. OMG, the Freudian pathos.

  21. ArthurH says:

    If anything, Sharer is guilty of plagiarism. Everything he said on his blog was swiped and clicked from other religious nut websites. The man isn’t a thinker. Wait until somebody sends him a clipping from the News of the World tabloid that claimed a large feathered serpent (similar to a mythical beast in Mexican folklore) was feasting on sheep in his district and adjacent Arizona. Then he can make a really big fool of himself.

  22. PDQ says:

    Larry Craig may have engaged in homosexual activity, but he married a woman

    Ted Haggard may have engaged in homosexual activity, but he married a woman.

    and on, and on, and on………

  23. BeccaM says:

    Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodly appendage for that…

  24. BeccaM says:

    Partly that. And partly that our state constitution specifically bans discrimination on the basis of gender. Plus we have laws that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Plus — and this one is the kicker — our state law says the state MUST recognize any legal marriage from any other jurisdiction, subject to a short list of disallowed marriages such as under aged ones, forced ones, incestuous or polygamous ones, etc. Not on that list? Same sex marriages.

    So it is a plain reading of the law would seem to indicate there’s no legal basis to deny marriage rights to same sex couples. Just ‘tradition’ and inertia…and animus.

  25. caphillprof says:

    Doesn’t this all boil down to the fact that the New Mexico code does not define marriage in terms of man and woman or husband and wife but in terms of parties to a civil contract and that nothing in law prevents a same sex couple from entering into a valid New Mexico marriage?

  26. caphillprof says:

    Not all of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.

  27. caphillprof says:

    People who do it “all by themselves” should be banished to a desert.

  28. caphillprof says:

    less Catholic, than fundamentalist

  29. evodevo says:

    This seems to be a common misconception among closeted religious rightwingers – it’s not gay if I’m married (see Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and countless others), even if I have sex with men !! I’m hetero !!!111!!!!! What are the odds on this guy?

  30. Indigo says:

    For all their many faults, our Founding Fathers were extreme revolutionaries who, gasp, rejected monarchy. I can’t think of anything in our contemporary social structure that would parallel that bold decision. Rejecting the global police move, maybe?

  31. Indigo says:

    Alexander married several women over the years for political reasons. He was a conqueror, after all, and had political alliances to seal. But never mind facts, a good rant is a good rant and that fool’s got the New Mexico rant market cornered. Just be glad he’s not your governor.

  32. Bomer says:

    “Gay marriage and how much he hateses it. (Gollum!)”

    That made me choke on my coffee. =)

    And, again, I’m really hoping the snake bites him.

  33. goulo says:

    Interesting sad/funny story, Monoceros. Did that argument with the person who hated the idea of collective progress happen before the era of collectively created open source software like Linux, Firefox, etc? Or was he just ignorant of open source software? :)

    (It would be funny if the guy was arguing with you online while using Firefox or other open source software…)

  34. Anonymous says:

    They have their own “experts.” They usually come from anti-science, anti-history Catholic “colleges.”

  35. Anonymous says:

    It’s known that marriage was just an arrangement for breeding throughout history. Ancient Greeks were encouraged to have a family with a woman, but “love” other men. It was common. It means nothing that women were married off for the sake of helping the population. Also, I think I know why he handles snakes. They feel like a…nevermind.

  36. Monoceros Forth says:

    I suspect there’s a bit of Orwell-like doublethink going on–unconsciously, mind you, but then one of Orwell’s points was that doublethink is, in its most perfect form, not a conscious deceit but an involuntary mode of thought. The notion that the one and same scientific process lies behind both the miracles of modern industry and the theory of evolution by natural selection just doesn’t enter into their heads. I suppose there might be some vague idea that there are two sorts of science, a good sort of science that’s hard and practical, the other sort of science that’s vague and theoretical. The first sort is valuable because it’s used to make valuable things; the second is merely the domain of addle-brained eggheads who make it all up as they go along.

    Maybe…maybe there’s something else going on here–it just occurred to me that there might be a connection between this anti-intellectual and the romantic notion (seen in Ayn Rand but common elsewhere) that scientific and technical advancement only happens because of mythical, powerful beings called “Entrepreneurs”, beings with great visions that ought never to be hindered by the petty rules of civilized society. I remember once getting into a flaming argument with someone (not a Christian BTW) who was so firmly wedded to this notion that he took serious offence to my contention that collective effort has produced many great inventions. (Seriously, the word “collective” really pissed him off.) It occurs to me that some such notion might inhabit the heads of people who love their high technology yet also believe that all scientists are woolly-brained charlatans: they figure that all the wonderful devices of modern technology were really the products not of science or scientists but of these noble demigods.

  37. Rob Dowdy says:

    The method that informs the science that gives them antibiotics and cell phones and big-screen TV’s and candy bars is never questioned, yet when that same method is applied to climate change and evolution it suddenly transforms into witchcraft and dark voodoo and its practitioners are accused of being nothing more than charlatans and snake-oil salesmen.

    They attempt to understand science and what it tells us (objectively) about the world by viewing it through the same myopic lens of superstition and faith with which they view the rest of their world.

    That’s why they say “theory” as if it just means “hypothesis,” and not, “a robust, heavily tested hypothesis that best explains the data and has not been successfully disproven.” The notion that scientists often spend much of their time working tirelessly to prove themselves spectacularly wrong probably isn’t even something the average denialist could fathom.

    So they pop another synthetic antibiotic to treat the UTI they got from drinking 8 cans of soda a day, climb onto their mass-produced, fire retardant couch; cram their gullets full of synthetic, food-like substances; and use their laptop/tablet/whatever to go online and whine about how we all need to get back to the “good old days” and stop embracing all this “unnatural” behavior.

  38. Monoceros Forth says:

    Antinous was quite the looker wasn’t he?

  39. Rob Dowdy says:

    Yeah, I’ve never, ever understood this notion that “the old ways” must be revered and sanctified. It presumes that people a long time ago, with far less knowledge of the world than what is currently available, were somehow smarter or at least more savvy than we are today, which is absurd on its face.

    I mean, the Founding Fathers? They were nice guys, some of them, when they weren’t raping their slaves, but they lived in a much smaller, less complicated world than we do. Transport one of their number forward to today and he would be utterly adrift, yet we are to take his centuries-old counsel as some sort of gospel regarding The Way Things Must Be For All Time.

    Take the “right to bear arms,” which those guys felt was necessary to prevent the government from getting too big for its knickers. It’s a good idea, in principle, but the “arms” of today would astonish and confound a man from 1776.

    What an entire company of 18th century soldiers would struggle to accomplish in their day a single soldier could exceed now with a lone weapon and a steady supply of ammo.

    And yet, we are told, the Founding Fathers thought there should be a “gun” in the closet of every patriot, so even if their antiquated notion of “gun” and the modern reality of “gun” are vastly different we aren’t allowed to discuss it because … tradition!

    So every good patriot should therefore have a high-capacity assault rifle to hand at all times. Just in case.

    Sorry for the tangent. All that ancestor worship crap just annoys the hell out of me.

  40. BeccaM says:

    You got that right. It’s also why my wife and I drove to California early last month instead. A whole lot less uncertainty. I mean, we already now know the Feds want us to file our taxes jointly.

  41. Monoceros Forth says:

    Isn’t that always the way, though? Just look at creationism or global warming denialism: somehow we’re supposed to believe that the world’s scientists are either stupid or corrupt, every last one of them, whereas GOP politicians and media personalities are the only ones brave enough and perceptive enough to see things for how they really are, using “common sense” and not the devious, untrustworthy machinations of academic learning (which is after all is riddled with left-wing America-haters.)

  42. Monoceros Forth says:

    Well said. Ideas founded on “tradition” of any sort do not deserve an automatic pass (nor automatic failure either, for what it’s worth) and ought to be examined and judged as all ideas old and new should be judged, on their merits.

    The right-wing bigots have to lean pretty heavily on “tradition”, however, as a euphemism for their specific religious prejudices. They can’t quite get away with saying that marriage shouldn’t be open to all citizens because their preacher says so, since that would be an open admission of religious bias, so they have to disguise their bias as a statement of some nebulous “tradition” that they pretend is universal.

  43. Thom Allen says:

    It’s amazing that so many Republicons are absolute experts on everything. There are probably PhDs in religion, history, politics, economics and other disciplines who wouldn’t even dream about making such sweeping statements about Aristotle, Alexander, monogamous marriage and christianity even if they had firm evidence. Yet he posts his views and KNOWS that they’re right. Then demands that his followers agree with his “reasoning.” This breed of Republicons definitely suffers from massively over-inflated egos, a total lack of objectivity and no sense of shame.

  44. Rob Dowdy says:

    Oops, I confused the AG of NM with the one from PA, which is going through a similar thing at the moment. Don’t know what I was thinking.

    I just read the same thing over on TPM about the Los Alamos clerk refusing to issue licenses.

    So much chaos, and in there zeal to score political points these people (on both sides sometimes) forget these are the hopes and dreams of real people they are playing poker with.

  45. karmanot says:

    “They feel that they have been given the divine right to make up their own reality.” there fixed that ( for me). These troglodytes have no idea about truth. .

  46. BeccaM says:

    Actually, our state AG is a guy named Gary King — Democrat, clearly rather progressive in his leanings. He’s the one who’s flat out said he thinks our current de facto ban on recognition is unconstitutional at both the state and federal levels.

    I think the only reason this has gone the way it has is because this is how our state district courts are structured, and because there were two county clerks who said, “The court says to do this. Fine, I won’t challenge it. Let’s go.” (Late word today is Los Alamos county, whose clerk is a conserva-GOPer, has decided to challenge the court order affecting her office.) As for Valencia and San Miguel, again — progressive clerks deciding just to go for it.

  47. karmanot says:

    The gods forbid he has yet to discover the gay Mr. butch, Emperor Hadrian.

  48. cole3244 says:

    as i have always thought as do psychologists heterosexual men that have an unhealthy dislike of gays are not what they seem to be and might be using their anger to hide an underlying feeling they are uncomfortable with, gay curious anyone.

  49. Rob Dowdy says:

    Well, I have been confused ever since this all started, since it seemed as if the individual counties were just doing whatever they felt like doing, willy-nilly, without any oversight from above, and for a long time now since it all started. And then judges would weigh in, but only in a very specific, narrow way, county by county, rather than one of them making some sweeping decision one way or another at the state level. Then you have the AG throwing her hands up and saying she isn’t going to do anything, and the governor saying he’s going to do something but not appearing to have any idea what that might be …

    I thought maybe that kind of seat-of-the-pants thing might just be unique to NM.

  50. Rob Dowdy says:

    Plus there are plenty of traditions that are just vile or stupid or pointless.

    Slavery comes to mind. The separation of the races for the sake of “genetic purity.” The role of women both inside and outside the home. The need for a robust, secular public education system.

    We have cast aside a great many long-standing, foundational traditions on the path to becoming who we are and it pays to remember that no matter how crushing the weight of tradition is on the back of forward progress there will always be those who will defend it to the bitter end, just as they did when it came time to end slavery and let women peek out of the kitchen.

  51. BeccaM says:

    I’ll offer up the standard, “I’m no attorney, but…” disclaimer here, but I honestly thought their strategy would’ve been to petition a state appeals or the NM Supreme Court for an injunction to stop all same-sex marriage licenses throughout the state. This would have the additional effect of halting halt the district-county level litigation that resulted in two of the counties — Santa Fe and Bernalillo — being under court order to issue licenses.

    Y’know, push it well up the judicial food chain and as quickly as possible. I found the fact they waited weeks to react, rather than filing immediately — like, within 24-48 hours — suggests strongly we’re not dealing with the sharpest sharks in the legal ocean.

  52. Monoceros Forth says:

    Alexander went into a complete meltdown when Hephaestion died, too, which rather undercuts the state senator’s point about how Alexander’s “homosexual activity” was just some sort of diversion or distraction from Alexander’s normal state of heterosexual married bliss.

    I think it’s important, by the way, to turn around the “special rights” or “special treatment” argument that the religious right has trotted out so frequently. They talk of “tradition” as though it meant only one thing when in fact there are hundreds of traditions, thousands even, but they want their particular “tradition” (which is not nearly the monolithic and constant thing they imagine but never mind) to overrule all others.

  53. Rob Dowdy says:

    That speaks to the casual misogyny that informs his faith. It wouldn’t even occur to him to think of the women except as ornamentation / status symbols for the men.

    It is possible that he believes, like many Mormons, that upon death he will become some sort of minor god and that he will have a harem of strictly subservient and dutiful goddess wives who will be eternally pregnant with “spirit children.”

    Here is a fascinating look at the role of women in the church. And by fascinating I mean ridiculous and disturbing.

  54. Rob Dowdy says:

    I tried to read his blog posts and just couldn’t do it. Surely he has a staffer or a friend or someone who (inexplicably, perhaps) cares about him who could edit this stuff into readability?

    It really does look like something from a freshman comp class. High school, not college.

    Just the intro, where he talks about the relationship between man and woman providing the foundations of society (in his own clumsy way), is stupid. How in the world is allowing a subset of people who would not marry the opposite sex anyway marry each other doing anything at all to straight people?

    They never answer that question, because the answers are all ugly: how does this affect you?

    It’s not as if once gay marriage becomes a legal “option” a lot of straight people are going to suddenly think, “Well, gee, I think I’ll try that!” and there will be no more babies.

    As for why only the one county, maybe he thinks if they can beat it there it’ll domino to the others? Who knows.

  55. BeccaM says:

    The revealing detail in Craig’s remark: He makes reference only to his grandfathers, and not a word about his grandmothers.

    I’m sure they’d love to have heard their family’s ‘success’ had nothing to do with them, just their husbands.

  56. Rob Dowdy says:

    And this from a state senator whose party ran at the top of their ticket just last year the great-grandson of a man with five wives who fled to Mexico to escape “persecution” (more like prosecution) in the late 1800s.

    This led to Romney, without a trace of guile, “joking” many decades later that he’d have probably had “a better shot at winning” if he’d been born in Mexico like his dad, who, funnily enough, fled back to the United States as a child when the Mexican Revolution flared up and things got a little too real south of the border.

    And bonus points to Mitt’s son Craig, who tossed off this bit of disingenuous dreck in an effort to reach out to the brown people in his RNC speech:

    “It’s easy to forget that the story of my father’s success begins with the story of two immigrants — my grandfathers — who came to this country with little more than hope in the opportunity of America.”

    If by “came to” you mean “returned to after having fled it to flout its laws and established moral order.”

    It can’t be easy to be a Republican these days. The mental contortions one must do to keep track of all the things one must studiously ignore must be exhausting.

  57. BeccaM says:

    I’m still boggling over the fact his legal challenge is directed at just the one county alone.

  58. 2patricius2 says:

    Methinks the state senator doth protest too much.

  59. Jim Olson says:

    In the post, he rewrites all of human social history in a brimming bucket-of-FAIL attempt to prove that marriage always was one man, one woman, and only for breeders, across all cultures, everywhere. This sentence earns your essay an A+!

  60. Rob Dowdy says:

    Should we tell him about Abraham Lincoln and his “good friends” Joshua Speed and Captain David Derickson?


    One day I was having lunch with Rev. Cindi Love, the executive director of Soulforce. I was telling her about my family history, my burgeoning love affair with Abraham Lincoln and my quest for more information. “I have been researching Lincoln and found a lot about his relationships with men, and I am getting this from a many sources,” I told her. “But I am puzzled about one thing: William Herndon has not mentioned or written anything that would indicate that Lincoln was gay.”

    She gave me a telling look and said, “Well, here is the missing piece of your puzzle. My maiden name is Herndon. William Herndon was my great-great-uncle, and he was gay, and he was Lincoln’s lover.” She went on to talk about how this information was handed down from generation to generation in the Herndon family.

    There are history books, and then there are generational stories that give character and quality to the threads on the loom of history. I believe that Lincoln was gay, and I see that as simply the sweet icing on the cake of the life story of our greatest president.

    I don’t know if he’s emotionally equipped to deal with it. So let’s tell him!

  61. Brad says:

    Don’t confuse bigots with facts. It never changes their messages. They feel that they have been given the divine right to make up their own truth.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS